One of the frequently cited differences between BRT and rail is that rail is much better at inducing development around stations. Traditionally this has been called a weakness of BRT and a strength of rail, but I wonder if BRT proponents shouldn’t re-frame the difference as a positive.

For those worried about the effects of gentrification along new rail lines, BRT could alleviate their fears. It might be a political solution to provide better transit while not risking as much displacement.

On the other hand, this is dangerous thinking. The long term effects of giving poor communities a second class transit system while giving rail to wealthier communities could potentially be disastrous. Certainly there is a social justice question about which is more fair. And of course, there is widespread debate about the positives and negatives of gentrification to begin with. It shouldn’t be taken as a given that it’s always bad. If there’s never any gentrification, poor areas become ghettos and that isn’t good for anyone.

But if the key to transit planning is to match the service to the needs of the corridor, it could be true that BRT’s inability to induce development might be a selling factor in some cases.